|
Home > Archive > HIV Aids > September 2005 > Questioning is the cornerstone of science
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]Pages: Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
| Author |
Questioning is the cornerstone of science
|
|
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-22, 5:45 pm |
| I just wanted to pose the question as to whether anyone one thinks the HIV
theory of AIDS - as a scientific theory - can ever be called into
question...
I am just thinking back to what I learned in school about all scientific
theories: that what makes them science - and not religion - is that they
can be questioned and found to be either partially wrong or completey
wrong, as our scientific understanding grows.
Aren't all great scientific discoveries are predicated on the question
"What if everything we thought we knew about this subject was wrong?"
Obviously there have been many, many scientific theories in the history of
mankind - no matter how irrefutable they appeared to be in their day -
which have later been proved to be abysmal failures.
Does HIV fall under this category? And to stimulate the conversation, I
would like to quote Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, co-discoverer of HIV,
Pasteur Institute, Paris:
“There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all signs
of AIDS. We are seeing people HIV-infected for 9, 10, 12 years or more,
and they are still in good shape, their immune system is still good. It is
unlikely that these people will come down with AIDS later.”
“HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS.”
VI Int’l AIDS Conference, Jun 24 1990
“AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the
co-factors that support the disease. It is very important to tell this to
people who are infected.... I think we should put the same weight now on
the co-factors as we have on HIV.”
“Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you
suppress this psychological support by telling someone he’s condemned to
die, your words alone will have condemned him.”
“We did not purify [isolate] ... We saw some particles but they did not
have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses ... They were very
different ... What we did not have, as I have always recognized it, is
that it was truly the cause of AIDS.”
Interview with Djamel Tahi-1997
What does everyone think about this?
Yours truly,
-Paul Whiting
Portland, Oregon
| |
| GMCarter 2005-08-22, 5:45 pm |
| On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:43:33 -0400, "pauleewhiting"
<pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I just wanted to pose the question as to whether anyone one thinks the HIV
>theory of AIDS - as a scientific theory - can ever be called into
>question...
Of course. Then one weighs the evidence to evaluate the hypothesis.
snip
>Does HIV fall under this category? And to stimulate the conversation, I
>would like to quote Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, co-discoverer of HIV,
>Pasteur Institute, Paris:
>
>“There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all signs
>of AIDS. We are seeing people HIV-infected for 9, 10, 12 years or more,
>and they are still in good shape, their immune system is still good. It is
>unlikely that these people will come down with AIDS later.”
>
>“HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS.”
>
>VI Int’l AIDS Conference, Jun 24 1990
He believes that HIV exists. Do you? Some in the denialist movement
don't. Or do only when it is convenient to their whim in a bizarre act
of cognitive dissonance more akin to faith than science.
At that time, he believed that HIV might require a co-factor infection
for AIDS to result. He looked hard at mycoplasma infections but came
up empty-handed. Co-infections may indeed act as accelerants to HIV
disease progression. But there is no evidence to show any single
co-factor is required for AIDS to develop.
For more information, peruse:
http://www.thebody.com/niaid/hiv/retrovirus.html
At this point, from discussions I've had with folks at Pasteur, I
believe Luc believes HIV causes AIDS. I haven't asked him lately;
maybe I'll drop him an email.
While this does not "prove" it, the accumulated data suggest that HIV
is indeed necessary and sufficient to cause AIDS.
George M. Carter
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-22, 5:45 pm |
| How could any scientist be considered a "denialist" by questioning a
scientific theory? What an odd term to use - sounds more like you think
they "blaspheme" rather than question...
As for me, I prefer to look at where one sits on a particular topic -
whether they are set to gain, or for that matter, lose a great deal -
while I asses where they stand...
Afterall, you have to look no further than current affairs to see much
reputation has to do with where one stands on a topic, such as the alleged
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
How many innocent soilders and civilians have died over that blatent lie?
And who, in the current administration, has the balls to admit they
mislead the American people and the world community?
And are the people - including veterans and the parents of fallen soldiers
- simply "in denial" over calling President Bush into question?
I would say that if any qualified scientist questioned a scientific theory
- let alone many scientists - I would want to know why terms like
"denialist" are being used to describe them. To me, that smacks of
religious sacrilege, not scientific process...
Tell me, do you think the voices of the few are more important than the
voice of the many when it comes to science?
Or is that only important when it comes to, say, a religious belief
wrapped in scientific clothing?
And what if there was a scientific theory that had a lot of people's good
reputation at stake if - just as an example - the theory were later found
to be dead wrong?
And what if civil lawsuits were to breakout like wildfires for those
seeking just compensation for being misled by those who could never admit
that - Gasp! - a scientific theory was later found to be severely flawed?
And what if those individuals being called into question were to use terms
such as "denialist" to describe those in the scientific community who
would - Gasp! - dare to come forward and question a scientific theory?
How would it make those who are being questioned - about their
"indisputable theory" - appear to the public?
What are they afraid of - do you think - that they would resort to name
calling to fend off the simple admontion of those individuals who are
highly qualified to question science - a.k.a., scientists?
And do you think people who file lawsuits, and the attorneys who represent
them, and juries that find in favor of them, and the judges that award
compensation to them, are simply "in denial"? What if some court cases
had already been won over this House of Cards Theory and many more were
about to begin? Or do you think that those involved in the entire court
system are also suffering from "cognitive dissonance more akin to faith
than science"?
I mean, how popular was Galileo, or Newton, or Einstein in their day when
they first rocked the establishment with their "denial of the obvious
truth"? Who threw Galileo in jail anyway? Was it his fellow scientists,
or the Roman Catholic Church?
Yes, why don't you contact Dr. Montagnier, since apparently you have the
ability to do so, and ask him whether he still feels HIV is the sole cause
of AIDS!
I am sure the readers of this forum would want to know whether the
co-discoverer of HIV thinks it alone is enough to cause AIDS. I know that
I would just love to hear his response!
Inquiring minds want to know,
-Paul Whiting
Portland, Oregon
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-08-22, 10:46 pm |
| Ah, I see you're still at it, Mr. Carter. But then, you're sort of trapped
in that position, isn't it?
Any way, I knew you'd bite.
>"At this point, from discussions I've had with folks at Pasteur, I
believe Luc believes HIV causes AIDS. I haven't asked him lately; maybe
I'll drop him an email."
You're bluffing, Mr. Carter. You're neither in the age group nor in the
class of Luc Montagnier.
| |
| wilyretrovirus 2005-08-22, 10:46 pm |
| Alright! Iconoclaster...keepin' it real!
| |
| Gary Stein 2005-08-22, 10:46 pm |
|
"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a3fe50490bad9b3b652449ba47c4c87@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com...
> How could any scientist be considered a "denialist" by questioning a
> scientific theory? What an odd term to use - sounds more like you think
> they "blaspheme" rather than question...
>
> As for me, I prefer to look at where one sits on a particular topic -
> whether they are set to gain, or for that matter, lose a great deal -
> while I asses where they stand...
You use what sources of data to determine if a individual scientist or other
person has something to gain or lose by supporting a particular view?
>
> Afterall, you have to look no further than current affairs to see much
> reputation has to do with where one stands on a topic, such as the alleged
> weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>
> How many innocent soilders and civilians have died over that blatent lie?
Based on your previous statement shouldn't the question your asking be " who
amongst the decision makers had something to gain by promoteing the Iraqi
WMD story.
>
> And who, in the current administration, has the balls to admit they
> mislead the American people and the world community?
>
> And are the people - including veterans and the parents of fallen soldiers
> - simply "in denial" over calling President Bush into question?
>
> I would say that if any qualified scientist questioned a scientific theory
> - let alone many scientists - I would want to know why terms like
> "denialist" are being used to describe them. To me, that smacks of
> religious sacrilege, not scientific process...
The term denialist is reserved for those who when presented with tens of
thousands of scientific research papers on the relationship between HIV and
AIDS still maintain that there is no connection. It is as absurd a position
to take as would be claiming that the earth is a disk rather then a sphere
and when presented with a photograph taken from space claim that the photo
is fraudulent and therefore not evidence of the spherical nature of the
earth.
>
> Tell me, do you think the voices of the few are more important than the
> voice of the many when it comes to science?
That is a invalid question. It would depend on the credentials of the voices
in question. If the voice was that of an individual with no formal
educational background in virology or medicine and it is stating an opinion
counter to the general consensus of the scientific community relating to
virology then one would not pay much attention to that voice. On the other
hand if the voice was from a PhD in Virology who is widely published on the
topic under discussion then that voice would warrant a significant amount of
attention.
>
> Or is that only important when it comes to, say, a religious belief
> wrapped in scientific clothing?
It is the denialist movement that has the closer resemblance to religious
beliefs in that it seems to be a faith based rather then fact based belief
system.
>
> And what if there was a scientific theory that had a lot of people's good
> reputation at stake if - just as an example - the theory were later found
> to be dead wrong?
Happens almost daily in science, it's not usually a very big deal. It is the
very hart of the scientific method for old models to give way to new models
as more data becomes available or new theories are found to be more
consistent with the data then had the previous theories.
>
> And what if civil lawsuits were to breakout like wildfires for those
> seeking just compensation for being misled by those who could never admit
> that - Gasp! - a scientific theory was later found to be severely flawed?
Again happens all the time in the US. A current example are the thousands of
pending lawsuits against the makers of the pain killer VIOX.
>
> And what if those individuals being called into question were to use terms
> such as "denialist" to describe those in the scientific community who
> would - Gasp! - dare to come forward and question a scientific theory?
Wouldn't happen, when a new model or therioy is found to invaldate an old
one the basis for that invalidation is data. Data that can and is duplicated
in many labs and thus a new consensus is reached based on facts. AIDS
denialists have never even come remotely close to meeting that standard.
>
> How would it make those who are being questioned - about their
> "indisputable theory" - appear to the public?
>
> What are they afraid of - do you think - that they would resort to name
> calling to fend off the simple admontion of those individuals who are
> highly qualified to question science - a.k.a., scientists?
There is not a singly highly qualified scientist who has published a peer
reviewed article that in any way shows that the Human Immunodefincey Virus
is not the cause of the syndrome known as AIDS.
>
> And do you think people who file lawsuits, and the attorneys who represent
> them, and juries that find in favor of them, and the judges that award
> compensation to them, are simply "in denial"? What if some court cases
> had already been won over this House of Cards Theory and many more were
> about to begin? Or do you think that those involved in the entire court
> system are also suffering from "cognitive dissonance more akin to faith
> than science"?
Have no idea what your talking about above, do you?
>
> I mean, how popular was Galileo, or Newton, or Einstein in their day when
> they first rocked the establishment with their "denial of the obvious
> truth"? Who threw Galileo in jail anyway? Was it his fellow scientists,
> or the Roman Catholic Church?
It was the faith based Church, just as in the HIV debate it is the faith
based denialists who are the most viscous in there attacks of those they
disagree with.
>
> Yes, why don't you contact Dr. Montagnier, since apparently you have the
> ability to do so, and ask him whether he still feels HIV is the sole cause
> of AIDS!
His latest published papers indicate that that is indeed the case. Though he
is still interested in the issue of cofactors having an impact on the speed
of progression of the disease.
>
> I am sure the readers of this forum would want to know whether the
> co-discoverer of HIV thinks it alone is enough to cause AIDS. I know that
> I would just love to hear his response!
Simply go to any decent sized university library and get the librarian to
help you find Dr. Montagnier's published work and you can read it yourself
then you don't have to take someone else's word for it.
>
> Inquiring minds want to know,
Inquiring minds want to know what your position on the connection of HIV and
AIDS is?
Gary Stein
| |
| GMCarter 2005-08-23, 8:45 am |
| On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:42:47 -0400, "pauleewhiting"
<pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote:
>How could any scientist be considered a "denialist" by questioning a
>scientific theory?
Because they play this BIG game, going around in a great circle. They
say: what about this? The evidence is provided, usually in answer to
the question as complete as science can be. They deny it. They go on
to the next "issue" that appears to support their conspiracy.
To a non-scientist or lay person, it may seem convincing. Once
deconstructed, you can see it's a load of crap.
Second, they provide no hypothesis (except Duesberg's "drugs cause
AIDS") as to why so many people are getting sick in the way they get
sick from HIV disease (if not treated). And Duesberg's hypothesis
simply is nonsense. Many drug users do not develop AIDS; they are not
HIV infected. Many non-drug users have developed AIDS; far too many
have died. They are HIV+.
In short, the evidence is clearly there and they, mostly lay people,
deny it. Ergo, "denialists." You know. Assholes like Gary Null.
Others who QUESTIONED the theory, such as Robert Root-Bernstein have
long since accepted a role for HIV in the development of AIDS.
George M. Carter
| |
| GMCarter 2005-08-23, 8:45 am |
| On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:08:02 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>Ah, I see you're still at it, Mr. Carter. But then, you're sort of trapped
>in that position, isn't it?
>Any way, I knew you'd bite.
>
>believe Luc believes HIV causes AIDS. I haven't asked him lately; maybe
>I'll drop him an email."
>
>You're bluffing, Mr. Carter. You're neither in the age group nor in the
>class of Luc Montagnier.
What in the world does age group have to do with anything?
Nope, not bluffing. I think I will take this opportunity to get in
touch with him. Thanks for the encouragement! I'll report back when I
hear something.
George M. Carter
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-23, 10:45 pm |
| Gentlemen,
My basic argument is this: if there is more than one well qualified doctor
or scientist who comes forward to publically call the HIV theory of AIDS a
House of Cards, I think there is sufficient cause to seriously question
that theory, regardless of who still supports it!
It does not matter how many thousands of scientists and doctors support a
scientific theory, if there are any - I repeat any - dissenting opinions
by highly qualified individuals then that theory to me is one that needs
to seriously be questioned.
And there are many, many dissenting voices.
Now, those voices are being shouted down and called "denialists," despite
the fact that many of them are highly-credentialed in the field of science
and medicine. So, why are those individuals being called "denialists"?
What, exactly, are they denying?
The following is a link to quotations by highly-credentialed individuals -
and many others - who have publically questioned the HIV theory and/or the
current treatments for AIDS. Whether, or not, they have a "proven"
replacement theory is irrelevant. They say HIV does not cause AIDS at all
- or is insufficient to cause AIDS by itself - yet they are NOT receiving
billion-dollar funding to test their alternate theories!
They are not getting the recognition they deserve for having the balls to
stand up to the scientific status quo and challenge a twenty-five year old
scientific theory. What they are receiving is admonition, castigation,
chastisement, punishment, and punition.
My question is to the readers of this forum is:
How can we ignore these individuals and say things like... "Because they
play this BIG game, going around in a great circle. They say: what about
this? The evidence is provided, usually in answer to the question as
complete as science can be. They deny it. They go on to the next 'issue'
that appears to support their conspiracy. To a non-scientist or lay
person, it may seem convincing. Once deconstructed, you can see it's a
load of crap"?
Are you both saying that all of these individuals in the professional
communnity who question the HIV theory - including some highly-recognized
individuals in the scientific and medical coummunities - are all full of
crap?
Come on! You can't tell me that all of these dissenting voices don't
constitute and MAJOR problem with the HIV theory of AIDS! I am not that
stupid, son! I have heard of WAY too many extremely powerful
organizations crumbling when their "gravy train" slammed into the lawsuit
wall!
No matter what the orthodoxy spouts off about how many hundreds of
thousands of papers have been published, proving the HIV theory, if the
original premise was incorrect, and there are qualified individuals
disputing that theory, then it is time for those of us affected by this
shoddy theory to question it as well!
And, as I mentioned, here is a link to quotes by those who have publically
questioned the HIV theory of AIDS:
http://www.aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm
And starting tomorrow, I am going to post each and everyone of their
quotes, so that those who do not think that quailified,
critically-thinking individuals are questioning this scientific theory can
then have a door opened for them to a greater understanding...
I would invite every member of this forum to read the quotes and then
decide for themselves whether the HIV theory is beyond questioning.
Yours in rethinking,
-Paul Whiting
Portland, Oregon
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-08-23, 10:45 pm |
| >"On the other hand if the voice was from a PhD in Virology who is widely
published on the topic under discussion then that voice would warrant a
significant amount of attention."
My, my, Mr. Stein. I can't be away for a short time and you get cocky
again. Oh well, when the cat's away from home, the mice are dancing.
One of those men with a PhD in Virology who is widely published, is a
member of the National Academy of Sciences, and is the major expert on
retroviruses is Peter Duesberg. And does anyone in your tightly-knit
circle pay significant attention to what Duesberg is saying? On the
contrary. All you do is disavowing one of the major authorities in the
field, although you do not have a Ph.D. but merely a script given to you
by the pharma industry. Do you know what we call these people who are
pushing an untenable theory, disregarding all scientific evidence?
"Denialists!"
| |
| Chris Noble 2005-08-24, 8:45 am |
| pauleewhiting wrote:
> I just wanted to pose the question as to whether anyone one thinks the HIV
> theory of AIDS - as a scientific theory - can ever be called into
> question...
>
> I am just thinking back to what I learned in school about all scientific
> theories: that what makes them science - and not religion - is that they
> can be questioned and found to be either partially wrong or completey
> wrong, as our scientific understanding grows.
>
> Aren't all great scientific discoveries are predicated on the question
> "What if everything we thought we knew about this subject was wrong?"
>
> Obviously there have been many, many scientific theories in the history of
> mankind - no matter how irrefutable they appeared to be in their day -
> which have later been proved to be abysmal failures.
>
> Does HIV fall under this category? And to stimulate the conversation, I
> would like to quote Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, co-discoverer of HIV,
> Pasteur Institute, Paris:
>
> "There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all signs
> of AIDS. We are seeing people HIV-infected for 9, 10, 12 years or more,
> and they are still in good shape, their immune system is still good. It is
> unlikely that these people will come down with AIDS later."
>
> "HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS."
Smoking is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause lung cancer.
Are you going to deny that there is overwhelming evidence that smoking
causes lung cancer?
Questioning is a major part of science. Denying evidence is not.
This "more scientific than thou" posturing reminds me of Intelligent
Design advocates. ...Evolution is just an unproven theory....
There are likely many co-factors that determine transmission
probability and speed of progression. None of this goes supports the
denialist dogma that HIV does not exists and does not cause AIDS.
Chris Noble
| |
| Chris Noble 2005-08-24, 8:45 am |
| If questioning is the cornerstone of science then I have some questions
for Dr Godschalk
He previously wrote before he ran away:
> Viruses DON't generally mutate. You can get them to do that in the lab, but in vivo
> there is no real evidence that it happens.
Do a pubmed search with keywords "polio" "mutation". Read the papers.
Try this one to start with
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en trez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&d
b=pubmed&...
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g ov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=53 3926
Look at figure 1. There is a steady accumulation of base changes.
For somebody who goes on about the "rules of virology" you seem to be
remarkably ignorant.
In the time since you ran away have you managed to find any citations
to support your claims or are you still trying the "'cause I said so"
approach to science?
I hope that Dr Godschalk is open to questions. I hope he won't
dogmatically stick to his own opinions.
Chris Noble
| |
| Chris Noble 2005-08-24, 8:45 am |
| wilyretrovirus wrote:
> Alright! Iconoclaster...keepin' it real!
====================================================================================
From: roepinwoes
Sent: 8/24/2005 8:48 AM
Good work, Paul! As I expected, Carter took the bait immediately, and
now he has me on his tail again. He'll probably call on his buddies for
help.
Wilhelm
===================================================================================
Bait?? Calling on buddies for help??
====================================================================================
From: roepinwoes (Original Message)
Sent: 6/11/2005 11:44 AM
Antbody who is interested in aiming some pot shots at real HIV goons,
join the discussion on:
http://www.talkabouthealthnetwork.c...ges/102067.html
This is getting to be fun! For the unitiated, I am "iconoclaster" in
this thread. Dan has joined me there already, and Paul is, as usual,
everywhere.
===================================================================================
Questioning??
==================================================================================
From: Paul King (Original Message)
Sent: 3/18/2004 5:09 PM
Message: - Shut down to LAM healtoronto.com (usual insults). They are
posting 500 messages a day..
I cannot keep up - not feeling well.
http://www.hivforum.com/bbs.asp
Well done Heal Toronto
=================================================================================
Chris Noble
| |
| GMCarter 2005-08-24, 8:45 am |
| On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:48:05 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>published on the topic under discussion then that voice would warrant a
>significant amount of attention."
>
>My, my, Mr. Stein. I can't be away for a short time and you get cocky
>again.
LOL. You are NOT a professor of microbiology.
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-24, 5:45 pm |
| Is this *the* Chris Noble, from the BMJ debates?
Why, Chris, darling! You honor me!
I even can't freakin' believe you are so threatened by my posts that you
would actually come to this dicussion to defend your "indisputable" little
theory!
Damn, I must be doing something right!
Here I am - just a humble administrative assistant in Portland, Oregon -
with the power to summon The Great Chris Noble! WOW!
It's like having the power to invite The Devil himself into a discussion
about religion!
But then, even His Satan Majesty isn't foolish enough to reveal his
weakness by showing up at church to debate the Alter Boy...
Tell me, Chris, do you think Toby Gettins is also "more scientific than
thou"?
“There is NO SUCH THING as the HIV virus. If there was, don’t you think
that the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry would have produced a sample
of it by now? Something that actually replicates in human tissue? But hey,
prove me wrong: Cite the scientific papers showing isolation and
replication of the virus.”
BBC News World Edition (online), 11 Nov 2003
— Toby Gettins, Theoretical Physicist, Birmingham, UK. Former researcher,
High Temperature Superconductivity, university of Exeter
And exactly what makes you think there isn't anything to question about
the Theory of Revolution?
So we can't question science at all now?
I guess we should just close the schools and let all of those budding,
young thinkers know there are no new discoveries to be made, no new
understandings to be had in the field of science and that everything
hitherto in the field of medicine is now carved in stone.
In your honor, we will call it "No child left a mind."
Yours in critical thinking,
Paul Whiting
Portland, Oregon
| |
| wilyretrovirus 2005-08-24, 5:45 pm |
| >Is this *the* Chris Noble, from the BMJ debates?
>Why, Chris, darling! You honor me!
>I even can't freakin' believe you are so threatened by my posts that you
would actually come to this dicussion to defend your "indisputable"
little
theory!
>Damn, I must be doing something right!
>Here I am - just a humble administrative assistant in Portland, Oregon -
with the power to summon The Great Chris Noble! WOW!
Paul, you'll know you've really done something right when they get scared
in call in their overlord "Bennett". Let's see how long that takes.
| |
| Brian Mailman 2005-08-24, 10:45 pm |
| pauleewhiting wrote:
> Is this *the* Chris Noble, from the BMJ debates?
So insted of attacking the messenger, do you have anything to say about
the message?
B/
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-08-24, 10:45 pm |
| >"LOL. You are NOT a professor of microbiology."
Microbiologogy? No, never been either.
Professor of Biochemistry, yes. Enjoying my retirement (and I mean really
enjoying it).
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-08-24, 10:45 pm |
| Mr. Noble! What a coincidence to find you here!
Next time you present links, please use some that really work. These two
didn't.
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-08-24, 10:45 pm |
| Splendid, Mr. Noble. On my part, I have not been idle either. I read some
of your stuff from 2002. I didn't like any of it. And your tactics have
not changed since that time either.
And since you mentioned it in another post: Yes, a virus can mutate. A
lot in lab cultures, especially after adding mutagens. A little
(probably; not many data) in vivo.
The mutations are random, and the chance to come up with a "new inproved
model" is negligible.
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-24, 10:45 pm |
| Brian,
Unfortunately, I don't have a degree in molecular biology, so I can't
really get into the nitty-gritty of this 25 year-old theory.
What I can do, however, is point out the obvious "gross logic" that *any*
scientific theory, no matter how "proven" it is, can still be disproven at
any point in time.
The history of science is replete with examples of this. And I am sure
you can think of many just from what you learned in Junior High...
So, I trust those in the scientific community who are highly-qualified to
talk about the HIV theory and who are publically saying that it is a
piping hot crock of doo-doo (pardon my French).
I leave the scientific debates to the scientists and do what I can to
point out the flaws of those who would claim their scientific view is
beyond questioning, when it is *clearly* being questioned.
Yours truly,
-Paul Whiting
Portland, Oregon
| |
| GMCarter 2005-08-25, 8:45 am |
| On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:50:56 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>
>Microbiologogy? No, never been either.
>Professor of Biochemistry, yes. Enjoying my retirement (and I mean really
>enjoying it).
Liar.
| |
| Brian Mailman 2005-08-25, 5:45 pm |
| GMCarter wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:50:56 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>
>
> Liar.
Lying that he's one step from the glue factory, or lying that he's
enjoying it?
B/
| |
| Brian Mailman 2005-08-25, 5:45 pm |
| pauleewhiting wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have a degree in molecular biology, so I can't
> really get into the nitty-gritty of this 25 year-old theory.
>
> What I can do, however, is point out the obvious "gross logic" that *any*
> scientific theory, no matter how "proven" it is, can still be disproven at
> any point in time.
Can be isn't will be, and yes, true science is about questioning. By
*peers.* That's why they call it "peer-reveiwed."
> So, I trust those in the scientific community who are highly-qualified to
> talk about the HIV theory and who are publically saying that it is a
> piping hot crock of doo-doo (pardon my French).
Seems to be at odds with your first paragraph.
B/
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-25, 5:45 pm |
| Brian,
The problem is, when those who are handsomely paid to support the HIV
theory engage in "peer review," everyone seems to be in agreement that the
theory stands.
And their checks just keep rolling in...
I don't argue that those heavily-invested in this theory - both
financially and professionally - are supporting it. That just stands to
reason.
What I am pointing out - by posting quotes from highly-credentialed
individuals who are very well qualified to debate the merits of this
theory - is that the theory itself seems to *not* be standing up to
reason.
Why are there so many scientists and doctors publically questioning the
HIV theory? Hmmmm?
Seems kinda funny that there would be *any* kind of dissent for a theory
that is claimed to be as infallible as this one.
Yet, there are scientists and doctors saying things like:
“There is NO SUCH THING as the HIV virus. If there was, don’t you think
that the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry would have produced a sample
of it by now? Something that actually replicates in human tissue? But hey,
prove me wrong: Cite the scientific papers showing isolation and
replication of the virus.”
BBC News World Edition (online), 11 Nov 2003
“Let’s put money into normal healthcare, clean water and grassroots
development. HIV is an illusion.”
— Toby Gettins, Theoretical Physicist, Birmingham, UK. Former researcher,
High Temperature Superconductivity, university of Exeter
Now, is Toby Gettins some kind of "evildoer" for saying that? What gives?
Is he just crazy?
What about all of the other scientists and doctors who have very
publically questioned the HIV theory? Are all of them just "denialists"?
So, can you explain that to me?
-Paul Whiting
Portland, Oregon
| |
| Larry Farrell 2005-08-25, 5:45 pm |
| Without getting into name calling, into which this thread quickly
degenerated, let me make a few points.
The problem with all of this is that the people who are "questioning"
the HIV/AIDS theory are doing nothing but talking. They are not
presenting research results that cast doubt on the theory. In many
cases, the people to whom you are referring, classic example being the
physicist quoted below, do not have the background and knowledge to
credibly question the massive amounts of research results that have been
produced that do support the theory. Anyone can state a personal
opinion about a scientific issue; if the person making the statement has
appropriate training and background to realistically address that issue,
their comments will be considered more significant than if they don't.
If they back up their comments with research results, then the comments
are going to be even more significant and may, as you have correctly
noted, even overturn the theory. However, if all that happens is
someone states an opinion and does not back it up, or someone else
quotes that opinion as the complete basis for questioning an issue,
there probably isn't going to be a whole lot of attention paid to it.
I know that one of the stock responses to what I have pointed out above
is that people who might question the theory cannot get money to do the
research needed to overturn the theory. Personally, I don't believe
that is a particularly valid arguing point. Much of the research that
might be done to initiate a serious questioning of the theory would not
be all that expensive and anyone actively doing research can find money
to support a new direction.
Please note that I am paid *nothing* to support the HIV/AIDS theory. I
do not do laboratory research on HIV/AIDS and I do not have any grants
from any segment of the pharmaceutical industry (in fact, I do not have
*any* research grants at this point in time). I have no financial stake
in this at all.
pauleewhiting wrote:
> Brian,
>
> The problem is, when those who are handsomely paid to support the HIV
> theory engage in "peer review," everyone seems to be in agreement that the
> theory stands.
>
> And their checks just keep rolling in...
>
> I don't argue that those heavily-invested in this theory - both
> financially and professionally - are supporting it. That just stands to
> reason.
>
> What I am pointing out - by posting quotes from highly-credentialed
> individuals who are very well qualified to debate the merits of this
> theory - is that the theory itself seems to *not* be standing up to
> reason.
>
> Why are there so many scientists and doctors publically questioning the
> HIV theory? Hmmmm?
>
> Seems kinda funny that there would be *any* kind of dissent for a theory
> that is claimed to be as infallible as this one.
>
> Yet, there are scientists and doctors saying things like:
>
> “There is NO SUCH THING as the HIV virus. If there was, don’t you think
> that the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry would have produced a sample
> of it by now? Something that actually replicates in human tissue? But hey,
> prove me wrong: Cite the scientific papers showing isolation and
> replication of the virus.”
>
> BBC News World Edition (online), 11 Nov 2003
>
> “Let’s put money into normal healthcare, clean water and grassroots
> development. HIV is an illusion.”
>
> — Toby Gettins, Theoretical Physicist, Birmingham, UK. Former researcher,
> High Temperature Superconductivity, university of Exeter
>
> Now, is Toby Gettins some kind of "evildoer" for saying that? What gives?
> Is he just crazy?
>
> What about all of the other scientists and doctors who have very
> publically questioned the HIV theory? Are all of them just "denialists"?
>
> So, can you explain that to me?
>
> -Paul Whiting
> Portland, Oregon
>
--
Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Idaho State University
| |
| Gary Stein 2005-08-25, 5:45 pm |
|
"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c40b657d0ab65fb353b23c15f3d9f34@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com...
> Brian,
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have a degree in molecular biology, so I can't
> really get into the nitty-gritty of this 25 year-old theory.
>
> What I can do, however, is point out the obvious "gross logic" that *any*
> scientific theory, no matter how "proven" it is, can still be disproven at
> any point in time.
Finally you've said something that makes sense. Yes of course any theory can
be disproven by new facts. It is precisely the lack of any new facts proving
otherwise that the HIV=AIDS theory is still the single most accurate model
of HIV disease. If the denialist were correct on even one of there many
points of contention it would be simple for them to provide the experimental
data proving there beliefs. Yet in 20+ years there record is zero against
the 10's of thousands of experiments that prove HIV does in fact cause AIDS.
>
> The history of science is replete with examples of this. And I am sure
> you can think of many just from what you learned in Junior High...
>
> So, I trust those in the scientific community who are highly-qualified to
> talk about the HIV theory and who are publically saying that it is a
> piping hot crock of doo-doo (pardon my French).
Name these so called highly-qualified experts and point us to research they
have published that backs up there claims with data rather then rhetoric.
>
> I leave the scientific debates to the scientists and do what I can to
> point out the flaws of those who would claim their scientific view is
> beyond questioning, when it is *clearly* being questioned.
No you seem to have faith in a belief that is not fact based and are using
rhetoric to try and bolster your faith.
Gary Stein
| |
| Gary Stein 2005-08-25, 5:45 pm |
|
"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:144f8e4dff07bbb3a1bdd7703a563ddd@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com...
> Brian,
>
> The problem is, when those who are handsomely paid to support the HIV
> theory engage in "peer review," everyone seems to be in agreement that the
> theory stands.
>
> And their checks just keep rolling in...
>
> I don't argue that those heavily-invested in this theory - both
> financially and professionally - are supporting it. That just stands to
> reason.
>
> What I am pointing out - by posting quotes from highly-credentialed
> individuals who are very well qualified to debate the merits of this
> theory - is that the theory itself seems to *not* be standing up to
> reason.
Do you honestly think that if a scientist could prove that HIV does not
cause AIDS he would not be rewareded with the Nobel Prize and many lucrative
contracts? Your own arguements about the nature of science puts the lie to
your belief that there is some type of consiparcy to silence the dissenters.
Gary Stein
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-25, 5:45 pm |
| Larry,
You make an excellent point, however, would you consider Peter Duesberg to
be someone qualified to make such statements?
How about David Rasnick?
Or Kary Mullis?
These are all individuals who have either done significant work on
retroviruses in general (Duesberg) or on "HIV" specifically (both Rasnick
and Mullis) and, then, questioned the theory.
Peter Duesberg - who has more than enough "appropriate training and
background to realistically address that issue," as you put it -
questioned the HIV theory, but did not receive the recongnition he
deserved for challenging a shoddy theory, he got quite the opposite
reaction.
He was once the Golden Boy of retroviruses who could do no wrong - until
he publically questioned HIV - and then could do no right.
Yet, you are saying these three gentlemen - who are all highly-qualified
to question the HIV theory due to their experience with that theory - are
not allowed to do so...
What reason do you give for questioning their questioning?
Have you read what Kerry Mullis has said about looking for the original
documentation supporting the HIV theory, as part of research he was doing
at the time for AIDS? Perhaps you would like to read his forward to Peter
Duesberg's book: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/kmforeword.htm
Now part of the problem in the field of science these days - so I gather
from what I have read - is not so much funding, but reputation.
Like it or not, the field of science is still populated with human beings
who are prone to one-sided thinking, bias, close-mindedness and all of the
other unpleasant human conditions.
Please see this excellent article about Richard Sternberg who made the
fateful mistake of challenging the Theory of Evalution:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5081801680.html
"Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year
ago.
"As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society
of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for
"intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery
of life is so complex as to require the hand -- subtle or not -- of an
intelligent creator.
"Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian
Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at
Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper..."
A closet Bible thumper? Does that sound like a "scientific" response to
you? And there are many, many examples of scientists being ostracized by
members of their own community for making the mistake of questioning the
status quo.
If you would like a very thoroughly researched and well-documented account
of what Peter Duesberg experienced when he called the HIV theory into
question, may I suggest you pick up a copy of Inventing the AIDS Virus.
Read that book.
And, then, tell me if you still think it's easy for those who question the
status quo to get funding for their nonconformist thoeries...
By the way, it took a me a long time to read Duesberg's book, because
don't have any formal scientific training. Some of it I didn't actually
understand, but what I did understand was his basic premise - based on his
extensive knowledge of retroviruses - that HIV could not possibly do all
the things they say it can do.
Now, my basic argument is this: if the people who are making these public
statements do, in fact, have "background and knowledge to credibly
question the massive amounts of research results that have been produced
that do support the theory," what happens to that theory?
More and more doctors and scientists are coming forward to challenge HIV
as the cause of AIDS - and even to challenge it's very existence. What
happens when the scales tip and it is finally discovered the HIV theory
was a poor one, at best?
What about all of those people who have been mislead into thinking they
have some "killer virus" lurking inside of them that turns out to be
either completely harmless, or non-existent?
And before you say, "That can't happen," think again, my friend...
What will you say to them? "Ooops?"
Maybe we need to start questioning this theory now, rather than waiting
until Bablyon falls, because once it falls many institutions will lose all
credibility.
And before you think Bablyon can never fall, think again, my friend...
-Paul Whiting
Portland, Oregon
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-25, 5:45 pm |
| Gary,
I would invite you to read Inventing the AIDS Virus by Dr. Peter Duesberg
PhD, Professor of Molecular Biology, university of California, member,
National Academy of Sciences and the first to map the genetic structure of
retroviruses.
This is what Dr. Robert Gallo had to say about his former colleague:
“Peter Duesberg knows more about retroviruses than any man alive.”
Spin, June 1992
This is what Peter Duesberg had to say about Robert Gallo:
“…The point that everybody is missing is that all those original papers
Gallo wrote on HIV have been found fraudulent. Well, then, that throws
into question the entire HIV hypothesis, doesn’t it? The HIV hypothesis
was based on those papers.”
Spin June 1992
And why is it such an impossibility that the HIV theory may YET prove to
be entirely wrong (we are talking about science here, aren't we?) despite
the "10's of thousands of experiments that prove HIV does in fact cause
AIDS"?
Are you saying the HIV theory is infallible?
Yours truly,
-Paul Whiting
Portland, Oregon
| |
| Larry Farrell 2005-08-25, 5:45 pm |
| See inserts below.
pauleewhiting wrote:
> Larry,
>
> You make an excellent point, however, would you consider Peter Duesberg to
> be someone qualified to make such statements?
>
> How about David Rasnick?
>
> Or Kary Mullis?
>
> These are all individuals who have either done significant work on
> retroviruses in general (Duesberg) or on "HIV" specifically (both Rasnick
> and Mullis) and, then, questioned the theory.
>
> Peter Duesberg - who has more than enough "appropriate training and
> background to realistically address that issue," as you put it -
> questioned the HIV theory, but did not receive the recongnition he
> deserved for challenging a shoddy theory, he got quite the opposite
> reaction.
>
> He was once the Golden Boy of retroviruses who could do no wrong - until
> he publically questioned HIV - and then could do no right.
Duesberg has done no actual research to support his questioning of HIV,
nor his contention that the actual cause of AIDS was drug use. Please
also note that Duesberg believes that HIV exists, and attempted to
collect the Continuum prize for proof of that existence, but the
magazine refused to award the prize since what he offered as proof,
including information about archived genetic sequences of HIV, was not
collected in ways that met the Perth Group's "gold standard," which
virtually no actual virologists accept.
>
> Yet, you are saying these three gentlemen - who are all highly-qualified
> to question the HIV theory due to their experience with that theory - are
> not allowed to do so...
>
***No, I did *not* say that. Go back and *read* what I said. There was
absolutely nothing in there about censoring anyone!*** What I did say
was that those folks probably aren't going to have much impact on the
scientific world unless they can back up their questioning of *any*
scientific theory with actual experimental data.
> What reason do you give for questioning their questioning?
>
Reams of scientific results that all support the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
Actual *research*!
[snip]
>
> Now, my basic argument is this: if the people who are making these public
> statements do, in fact, have "background and knowledge to credibly
> question the massive amounts of research results that have been produced
> that do support the theory," what happens to that theory?
>
Absolutely nothing, until experimental data clearly controvenes the
current theory (whether HIV/AIDS or anything else). Keep in mind that a
*scientific theory* is not even put forward until an initial hypothesis
has been tested many, many times and found to always provide the best
explanation for a phenomenon. Only then is it promoted to the status of
a theory. One issue for non-scientists is that a theory is usually
considered only a wild XXX guess about something and, therefore, it can
be refuted by little more than a good counter-argument. However, in
science, a theory, developed as described above, can only be refuted by
considerable amounts of experimental data that are inconsistent with the
theory. Questioning, by itself, may cause other people to look more
closely at the system but, unless that closer look produces data that
don't fit the theory, the theory continues to stand as the best
explanation of the phenomenon.
[snip]
--
Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Idaho State University
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| "Please also note that Duesberg believes that HIV exists, and attempted to
collect the Continuum prize for proof of that existence, but the magazine
refused to award the prize since what he offered as proof, including
information about archived genetic sequences of HIV, was not
collected in ways that met the Perth Group's 'gold standard,' which
virtually no actual virologists accept."
An excellent point, to which I would add that doesn't mean virologists are
correct in *not* accepting the Perth Group's 'Gold Standard.'
Virologists are human too and can by just as wrong as they claim the Perth
Group is.
And do you think it would interest those who are being told they have a
deadly virus inside of their body that there is *no gold standard* for the
test uopon which their diagnosis was based?
Do you think folks who are HIV-positive would like to know the HIV theory
of AIDS is now being questioned by many, many highly-qualified
scientists?
And do you feel that HIV-positive people have a right to hear dissenting
arguments from those same qualified scientists, regardless of whether
experimental data has been produced?
"Keep in mind that a *scientific theory* is not even put forward until an
initial hypothesis
has been tested many, many times and found to always provide the best
explanation for a phenomenon."
Is that what Robert Gallo did when he announced at a press conference on
April 23rd 1984 that he had found the "probable cause of AIDS"?
Had his work been peer reviewed?
Had it even been published at all?
Why did the French government sue the American government claiming Gallo
had stolen Dr. Luc Montagnier's work and claimed it as his own?
Why was Robert Gallo's title as "co-discoverer" of HIV eventually stripped
away from the good doctor?
Have you actually done any research into how this theory was "proven" by
Gallo?
Before you start claiming the HIV theory went through anything resembling
the scientific process - before being presented to the public as the
proven cause of AIDS - may I suggest you read the book "Science Fictions:
A Scientific Mystery, a Massive Cover-up, and the Dark Legacy of Robert
Gallo" by Robert Steinbrook.
Steinbrook did a phenomenol job of documenting the rise - and fall - of
our dear Dr. Gallo.
But be careful reading this book, as you may even come to question the HIV
theory yourself...
Yours truly,
-Paul Whiting
| |
| Brian Mailman 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| pauleewhiting wrote:
> Larry,
>
> You make an excellent point, however, would you consider Peter Duesberg to
> be someone qualified to make such statements?
>
> How about David Rasnick?
>
> Or Kary Mullis?
So here's a questin for you, and see if you can answer it *briefly*
instead of a flood of words.
Why do you only pick the "scientists" that support your theory?
Isn't science supposed to be about all information and not picking and
choosing what you, personally, wish to believe?
Why can't you point to any actual *data*, what Larry Farrell keeps
asking for, supporting their theories?
B/
| |
| Larry Farrell 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| pauleewhiting wrote:
[snip]
>
>
>
> Is that what Robert Gallo did when he announced at a press conference on
> April 23rd 1984 that he had found the "probable cause of AIDS"?
>
What makes you think that Gallo presented a "theory" at that press
conference? What makes you think that Gallo is the only one involved in
this whole process. At best, what Gallo presented would be, as
explained above, an hypothesis. It did not even begin to be elevated to
the level of a theory until it had been tested in thousands of
additional experiments.
[snip]
>
> Why did the French government sue the American government claiming Gallo
> had stolen Dr. Luc Montagnier's work and claimed it as his own?
>
> Why was Robert Gallo's title as "co-discoverer" of HIV eventually stripped
> away from the good doctor?
Absolutely irrelevant since neither of these points has anything
whatsoever to do with the HIV/AIDS "theory" and, as pointed out above,
Gallo is clearly not the only scientist to ever do work in this area.
>
> Have you actually done any research into how this theory was "proven" by
> Gallo?
>
Not a theory, at least at that point in time, and Gallo did not "prove"
it. At best, a theory can only be disproved.
> Before you start claiming the HIV theory went through anything resembling
> the scientific process - before being presented to the public as the
> proven cause of AIDS -
[snip]
Again, Gallo did not present a theory. And whether Gallo's hypothesis
went through the "scientific process" (can you explain what you think
that is?) is completely irrelevant to the masses of experimental data
produced around the world since that time, all of which support the idea
that HIV causes the immune deficiency that results in the development of
AIDS.
As long as the only thing that people do is *talk* about problems with
that idea, and they never produce any experimental results that
demonstrate that those problems actually exist and that some other
hypothesis more clearly explains AIDS, the scientific world is not going
to pay much attention.
--
Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Idaho State University
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| You're not making sense, Mr. mailman.
>"Can be isn't will be, and yes, true science is about questioning. By
*peers.* That's why they call it "peer-reveiwed."
Robert Gallo was indeed questioned by *peers* such as Kary Mullis and
Peter Duesberg. But did any of you lesser mortals listen? Indeed not.
You just keep holding on to your dogma, because that's what you were told
to do.
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| Brian and Larry,
Those are excellent points and I cannot respond to them because I don't
have any formal scientific training. Thus, I am unable to quote the
references you so greatly desire.
Have their ever been - to your knowledge - any studies funded by the CDC
or the NIH to test any alternate hypothesis to AIDS?
Even one?
You guys are the ones who work in the field, yes? Has anyone ever been
given government money to test their alternative theories to HIV? Or is
HIV considered so "indisputable," that nothing else is given funding?
I guess that would be my response.
If no other theories of AIDS causation, besides HIV, are being even
remotely considered by those who fund scientific studies (i.e., the
Federal Government), how is anyone supposed to test other theories?
Does that make sense?
Yours truly,
-Paul Whiting
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| Good to see you back too, Professor Farrell.
Maybe we can still have that protracted discussion.
What you're saying is that only the 'insiders' are allowed to question
the
work that has been done on 'HIV' A physicist, for example is
disqualified.
Well, there have been extremely qualified scientists such as Duesberg
and
Mullis questioning this theory which is so far-fetched and idiotic that a
mere highschool diploma is sufficient to make one see that it doesn't
make
sense.
Indeed, thousands of papers have been written on the subject in the past
20 years. Some were even well-intentioned. But they were all based on
invalid assumptions. And whenever the results don't suport the basic
dogma, the goalposts are moved. New fantastic properties are ascribed to
a retrovirus (that probably doesn't even exist) lacking the genetic
material to carry out all these intelligent tricks.
You deny any material interest in the HIV movement. Yet, you must have
some reason to side with these farma shills. It is simply impossible for
someone with a Ph.D. in microbiology to really believe all that stuff
they've been publishing about an infectious entity named 'HIV'.
What's your motive, Professor?
| |
| Chris Noble 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| Iconoclaster wrote:
> Splendid, Mr. Noble. On my part, I have not been idle either. I read some
> of your stuff from 2002. I didn't like any of it. And your tactics have
> not changed since that time either.
If by tactics you mean posting references and asking other people do
the same then I can see why you don't like it. How nasty of me to ask
questions. Why shouldn't I just believe the denialists.
> And since you mentioned it in another post: Yes, a virus can mutate. A
> lot in lab cultures, especially after adding mutagens. A little
> (probably; not many data) in vivo.
> The mutations are random, and the chance to come up with a "new inproved
> model" is negligible.
Do you have any references for these bold claims. Or am I supposed to
take your word for it?
Chris Noble
| |
| Chris Noble 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
|
pauleewhiting wrote:
> "There is NO SUCH THING as the HIV virus. If there was, don't you think
> that the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry would have produced a sample
> of it by now? Something that actually replicates in human tissue? But hey,
> prove me wrong: Cite the scientific papers showing isolation and
> replication of the virus."
A sample of HIV?
You can order it online.
http://www.aidsreagent.org/
http://www.nibsc.ac.uk/catalog/aids-reagent/
Thousands of scientists propagate these viruses in labs all across the
world. Of couse they should stop all their work now and take your word
for it that there is NO SUCH THING as the HIV virus.
Chris Noble
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| All good and well, professor, but Gallo's theory was not plausible from the
start. A retrovirus is certainly the most stupid choice for a pathogenic
agent that kills cells. But shucks, retroviruses were still held over
from the equally stupid "War on Cancer". So Gallo's brainchild was
published by press conference, after which the press proclaimed it as the
gospel truth. Whoever dared to present a different theory (as Peter
Duesberg id) was branded a heretic, and was cut off from all research
funds. So there simply was no evaluation of different hypotheses. Do we
really have to call that a scientific approach?
| |
| wilyretrovirus 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| Mr. Farrell,
you've got my BS detector going at full tilt.
Whether Gallo presented an "hypothesis" or a "theory" at that famed press
conference isn't all that important. What IS important is that all the
"thousands of experiments" performed over the years are all based on his
original work, i.e., HIV causes AIDS. Pretty simple stuff, really.
To suddenly cast him into a pool with the thousands of other scientists
and researchers out there is disingenuous to say the least. If anybody
can lay claim to the idea that HIV causes AIDS, it's Gallo. Come now,
we're not that easily fooled here.
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| >"What makes you think that Gallo presented a "theory" at that press
conference? What makes you think that Gallo is the only one involved in
this whole process. At best, what Gallo presented would be, as explained
above, an hypothesis. It did not even begin to be elevated to the level
of a theory until it had been tested in thousands of
additional experiments."
No sir! Absolutely not. It didn't just become a theory, but an
undisputable dogma at the very moment thant press conference ended.
All these thousands of experiments that have been performed may have been
valid (I've read planty of them), but in the 'Results and Discussion'
section the same mistake is made over and over again: The experimental
results are explained on the basic assumption that HIV exists and causes
AIDS. But that's just the point they're trying to prove.
Tell me: Don't you recognize circular reasoning when you see it?
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| Oh, eh... Mr. Mailman?
Before you try to coax us into doing our homework over and over again (did
you learn that from Mr. Noble?), I must remind you of the fact that the
burden of proof is upon the orthodoxy.
And I must truly say: Their work sucks. Why do you think they had to
invent a new disease named "Idiopathic CD4+ T-cell Lymphocytopenia" when
it turned out there were cases of 'AIDS' without a positive test for 'HIV
antibodies', i the early years of the AIDS charade?
And why do you think they had to invent a whole new virus named "Hepatitis
virus C", to explain the massive liver damage caused by these 'wholesome'
anti-retroviral drugs?
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| Yes, Mr. Noble, you have to take my word for it. At the moment I don't feel
like being put to work by you. Besides, I am a fully qualified biochemist
who knows at least as much as any of the authors of papers I might quote.
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| Sure Mr. Noble. If you can sell it, why shouldn't you grow it?
Indeed they're growing 'something'. Only, we don't know exactly what it
is. But the cultures that are sold all over the world all have one origin:
The culture that Gallo stole from Montagnier.
Maybe it is similar to the very first "human cancer virus" that Gallo
discovered earlier. That turned out to be a mixture of 3 monkey viruses,
and was never heard from again.
| |
| Larry Farrell 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| Iconoclaster wrote:
> Good to see you back too, Professor Farrell.
> Maybe we can still have that protracted discussion.
Not as long as you continue to misrepresent what I have said, and play
rhetorical games that have nothing to do with science.
> What you're saying is that only the 'insiders' are allowed to question
> the
> work that has been done on 'HIV' A physicist, for example is
> disqualified.
You need to READ what I wrote; your misrepresentation here is quite
obvious to anyone who has done so and is scurrilous. Nowhere did I say
that anyone is disallowed questioning of anything. What I *did* say was
that such folks were unlikely to be taken very seriously, particularly
when their questioning is not supported by experimental data.
> Well, there have been extremely qualified scientists such as Duesberg
> and
> Mullis questioning this theory which is so far-fetched and idiotic that a
> mere highschool diploma is sufficient to make one see that it doesn't
> make
> sense.
> Indeed, thousands of papers have been written on the subject in the past
> 20 years. Some were even well-intentioned. But they were all based on
> invalid assumptions.
Then they should have produced vastly different results. The
"assumptions" for which you seem to have so much disdain would have
absolutely no effect on the functioning of biological systems and would
*not* skew the data they produce.
>And whenever the results don't suport the basic
> dogma, the goalposts are moved.
Prove this statement.
New fantastic properties are ascribed to
> a retrovirus (that probably doesn't even exist) lacking the genetic
> material to carry out all these intelligent tricks.
Duesberg thinks HIV exists, and actually tried to claim the Continuum
prize for proving its existence. Most of the "intelligent tricks" that
have been ascribed to HIV have pretty much been made up our of thin air.
>
> You deny any material interest in the HIV movement. Yet, you must have
> some reason to side with these farma shills. It is simply impossible for
> someone with a Ph.D. in microbiology to really believe all that stuff
> they've been publishing about an infectious entity named 'HIV'.
> What's your motive, Professor?
You think it is impossible because you can't understand the literature?
Seems likely from someone who believes that viruses mutate little, if
at all, in nature. My motive is to try to get people to pay attention
to science instead of to conspiracy theorists and rabble rousers. And
your motive??
The jibes in the posting to which I have responded are as tiresome as
they have been all along. I will not waste any more of my time with
you. Rail away!
--
Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Idaho State University
| |
| Larry Farrell 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| wilyretrovirus wrote:
> Mr. Farrell,
> you've got my BS detector going at full tilt.
Then you had better get another BS detector. The one you are depending
on now is so full of your BS that it is giving false readings.
>
> Whether Gallo presented an "hypothesis" or a "theory" at that famed press
> conference isn't all that important. What IS important is that all the
> "thousands of experiments" performed over the years are all based on his
> original work, i.e., HIV causes AIDS. Pretty simple stuff, really.
>
Oh, you mean that Gallo directly dictated all of the results that all
other experiments would find "over all the years" by stating his initial
hypothesis? Then you know absolutely nothing about science. Whether
based on his original work or not, biological systems do not work a
certain way simply because someone says they should based on some idea
they have, nor do all other scientists wilfully skew their results so
they only support one such idea. To think otherwise is fall into the
trap of the conspiracy theorists.
> To suddenly cast him into a pool with the thousands of other scientists
> and researchers out there is disingenuous to say the least. If anybody
> can lay claim to the idea that HIV causes AIDS, it's Gallo. Come now,
> we're not that easily fooled here.
>
What possible relevance does Gallo's idea that HIV causes AIDS, wherever
and however it was presented, have to any of the other experiments
that have been done worldwide? If anyone is being disingenuous, it is
you. Biological systems do not operate as any one person says they
should, no matter how often you throw out that red herring. It appears
to me that you are fooling yourself.
--
Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Idaho State University
| |
| Larry Farrell 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
| Iconoclaster wrote:
>
> No sir! Absolutely not. It didn't just become a theory, but an
> undisputable dogma at the very moment thant press conference ended.
Prove this statement.
> All these thousands of experiments that have been performed may have been
> valid (I've read planty of them), but in the 'Results and Discussion'
> section the same mistake is made over and over again: The experimental
> results are explained on the basic assumption that HIV exists and causes
> AIDS. But that's just the point they're trying to prove.
> Tell me: Don't you recognize circular reasoning when you see it?
>
>
Pot, kettle, black.
--
Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Idaho State University
| |
| Death 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
|
"Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>
> No sir! Absolutely not. It didn't just become a theory, but an
> undisputable dogma ....
didn't the virus sample Gallo started his experiments
with come from France, and that virus sample was contaminated?
| |
| Chris Noble 2005-08-25, 10:48 pm |
|
Iconoclaster wrote:
> Sure Mr. Noble. If you can sell it, why shouldn't you grow it?
> Indeed they're growing 'something'. Only, we don't know exactly what it
> is. But the cultures that are sold all over the world all have one origin:
> The culture that Gallo stole from Montagnier.
I don't suppose you have a reference for that? "I read it on a
denialist website" doesn't count.
Were all the HIV isolates available all from this one isolate?
HIV-1, group M, subtypes A-G
HIV-1, group N
HIV-1, group O
HIV-2
HIV-2 7312A
Catalog Number: 3511
Originally isolated from a 32-year-old male from the Cote d'Ivoire
with symptomatic (lymphadenopathy...
> Maybe it is similar to the very first "human cancer virus" that Gallo
> discovered earlier. That turned out to be a mixture of 3 monkey viruses,
> and was never heard from again.
Gallo and Montagnier's results have been repeated and verified time and
time again.
Experiments by the perth group or Duesberg have never been repeated or
even performed at all. Their rhetoric has been repeated ad infinitum by
Denialists
Chris Noble
| |
| Chris Noble 2005-08-26, 8:45 am |
|
Iconoclaster wrote:
> Yes, Mr. Noble, you have to take my word for it. At the moment I don't feel
> like being put to work by you. Besides, I am a fully qualified biochemist
> who knows at least as much as any of the authors of papers I might quote.
That's interesting. The title of the thread is "Questioning is the
cornerstone of science". Now you want me to bow down to your supposed
authority.
You may be able to bluff your denialist buddies with your bullshit but
don't be surprised if the rest of the world laughs at you.
Chris Noble
| |
| Chris Noble 2005-08-26, 8:45 am |
|
Larry Farrell wrote:
> wilyretrovirus wrote:
>
>
> Then you had better get another BS detector. The one you are depending
> on now is so full of your BS that it is giving false readings.
>
>
> Oh, you mean that Gallo directly dictated all of the results that all
> other experiments would find "over all the years" by stating his initial
> hypothesis? Then you know absolutely nothing about science.
The theory of heavier-than-air flight is all predicated on early
experiments by the Wright brothers. All so called "flying" is based on
this. All you need to disprove this theory is find flaws in the Wright
brothers "proof". Whatever you do don't go to an airport and look at
planes taking off or landing it might conflict with your worldview.
Chris Noble
| |
| GMCarter 2005-08-26, 8:45 am |
| On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:07:19 -0700, Brian Mailman
<bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>GMCarter wrote:
>
>Lying that he's one step from the glue factory, or lying that he's
>enjoying it?
That too!
| |
| GMCarter 2005-08-26, 8:45 am |
| On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:50:20 -0400, "pauleewhiting"
<pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Brian,
>
>The problem is, when those who are handsomely paid to support the HIV
>theory engage in "peer review," everyone seems to be in agreement that the
>theory stands.
Oh horseshit. There's PLENTY of people not paid well and not paid at
all that recognize that the evidence is clear that HIV causes AIDS.
Do you think there is ONE paper that PROVES adenovirus causes disease?
Or influenza? That H5N1 exists? SARS?
George M. Carter
| |
| GMCarter 2005-08-26, 8:45 am |
| On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:32:21 -0400, "pauleewhiting"
<pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Brian and Larry,
>
>Those are excellent points and I cannot respond to them because I don't
>have any formal scientific training. Thus, I am unable to quote the
>references you so greatly desire.
Then you are a profound hypocrite.
You started the thread by wondering if it was "OK" to question
authority. The answer was a resounding YES, of course it is.
The responsibility then for you is to not simply be a braindead
mouthpiece of such questioning but to actually look at the evidence
presented by both sides. Now you retreat into "ignorance" as a
justification for your virulent posts and spewing of nonsense?
You know nothing is now your clarion call.
Well...don't you think that makes you a bit of a jackass?
George M. Carter
| |
| GMCarter 2005-08-26, 8:45 am |
| On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:17:32 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>Oh, eh... Mr. Mailman?
>Before you try to coax us into doing our homework over and over again (did
>you learn that from Mr. Noble?), I must remind you of the fact that the
>burden of proof is upon the orthodoxy.
>And I must truly say: Their work sucks. Why do you think they had to
>invent a new disease named "Idiopathic CD4+ T-cell Lymphocytopenia" when
>it turned out there were cases of 'AIDS' without a positive test for 'HIV
>antibodies', i the early years of the AIDS charade?
You are not a professor. You're an idiot.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim that
HIV does not cause AIDS requires evidence and a reason for why
people's CD4 counts drop to zero. There is NOTHING from the
denialists, except Duesberg's patently ridiculous "drugs cause AIDS"
theory.
>And why do you think they had to invent a whole new virus named "Hepatitis
>virus C", to explain the massive liver damage caused by these 'wholesome'
>anti-retroviral drugs?
Because they didn't? Many people with AIDS on antiretrovirals suffer
liver toxicity and do not have hep C. Many people without HIV have
hepatitis C and may develop cirrhosis.
George M. Carter
| |
| GMCarter 2005-08-26, 8:45 am |
| On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:23:27 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>You're not making sense, Mr. mailman.
>
>*peers.* That's why they call it "peer-reveiwed."
>
>Robert Gallo was indeed questioned by *peers* such as Kary Mullis and
>Peter Duesberg. But did any of you lesser mortals listen? Indeed not.
>You just keep holding on to your dogma, because that's what you were told
>to do.
HIV orthodoxy (not just Gallo by any means) was questioned by LOTS of
people. Like Robert Root-Bernstein. Here's a guy that took those
questions and investigated it. He now believes HIV exists and causes
AIDS, though he still believes it may require a co-factor to
effectively cause AIDS. I don't think he's right on that score; I
think HIV can do it on its own. However, it's clear that various
co-infections may result in more rapid progression.
Yet, now that scientist is off your radar....gee...wonder why.
George M. Carter
| |
| wilyretrovirus 2005-08-26, 8:45 am |
| Mr. Farrell,
honestly, you're response is both hilarious and ridiculous.
"What possible relevance does Gallo's idea that HIV causes AIDS, wherever
and however it was presented, have to any of the other experiments that
have been done worldwide?"
Are you trying to tell us that all those scientists and researchers out
there are NOT working with the idea that HIV causes AIDS? That's Gallo's
baby, Mr. Farrell. Please, you're insulting our collective intelligence
and making yourself look stupid as well. Keep it up!
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-26, 8:45 am |
| Chris, George, Larry and Brian and Gary,
How many alternative theories to HIV have ever received funding?
Is there even one?
You challenge the "denialists? to provide evidence of their claims, but
the only theory being given ANY funding - since Robert Gallo introduced
the world to it at a press conference - is HIV.
Yet, there are many, many qualified scientists - which you so endearingly
call "denialists" who question the HIV theory - who would *love* the
opportunity to test their theories.
Why aren't these individuals being given that opportunity?
If HIV is NOT the first "indisputable" theory in the history of mankind,
why have NO OTHER theories ever received funding from the Federal
Government?
Can you even site one theory that has ever been given ANY money to be
tested?
Just one will do.
How about Peter Duesberg's theory? Did he ever receive any funding to
test his drug theory?
I think the answer to that will be a big, fat "No."
So, before you ask another "denialist" for references proving their
alternatives to the HIV theory, perhaps you should find out whether they
are being give *equal opportunity* to prove their theories through equal
funding.
Yours truly,
-Paul Whiting
Portland, Oregon
| |
| Larry Farrell 2005-08-26, 11:45 am |
| wilyretrovirus wrote:
> Mr. Farrell,
> honestly, you're response is both hilarious and ridiculous.
>
> "What possible relevance does Gallo's idea that HIV causes AIDS, wherever
> and however it was presented, have to any of the other experiments that
> have been done worldwide?"
> Are you trying to tell us that all those scientists and researchers out
> there are NOT working with the idea that HIV causes AIDS? That's Gallo's
> baby, Mr. Farrell. Please, you're insulting our collective intelligence
> and making yourself look stupid as well. Keep it up!
>
>
You obviously could not deal with the message, since you deleted the
entire thing, but instead try to ridicule the messenger. Your post
actually says very little about me but reveals a lot about you. I feel
sorry for you, but I am not going to waste any more time with you.
--
Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Idaho State University
| |
| Larry Farrell 2005-08-26, 11:45 am |
| pauleewhiting wrote:
[snip]
>
> Yet, there are many, many qualified scientists - which you so endearingly
> call "denialists" who question the HIV theory - who would *love* the
> opportunity to test their theories.
>
> Why aren't these individuals being given that opportunity?
Since you are the one making the claim that they are being denied the
opportunity, it is your responsibility to prove that is true. No one
here, or anywhere else, has any responsibility for disproving it.
[snip]
--
Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Idaho State University
| |
| GMCarter 2005-08-26, 11:45 am |
| On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:13:59 -0400, "pauleewhiting"
<pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Chris, George, Larry and Brian and Gary,
>
>How many alternative theories to HIV have ever received funding?
The ONLY theory I've heard as to what AIDS is comes from Duesberg.
And there are AMPLE data showing that the Drugs Cause AIDS theory is
full of holes. That has been studied and reviewed.
No recreational drugs cause persistent chronic declines in CD4 counts.
None cause OIs. Many people with HIV/AIDS do not use recreational
drugs.
In short, the evidence that exists utterly refutes Duesberg.
So what other hypothesis is there? None. Nothing. Nada.
George M. Carter
| |
| Brian Mailman 2005-08-26, 11:45 am |
| Iconoclaster wrote:
> Robert Gallo was indeed questioned by *peers* such as Kary Mullis and
> Peter Duesberg. But did any of you lesser mortals listen?
It was quite a schock to me when I began late adolesence and I found out
I really wasn't that important after all. Apparently, some people never
got past that stage.
B/
| |
| Brian Mailman 2005-08-26, 11:45 am |
| pauleewhiting wrote:
> Brian and Larry,
>
> Those are excellent points and I cannot respond to them because I don't
> have any formal scientific training. Thus, I am unable to quote the
> references you so greatly desire.
Well, then. You can't make statements, because you can't back them up.
> If no other theories of AIDS causation, besides HIV, are being even
> remotely considered by those who fund scientific studies (i.e., the
> Federal Government), how is anyone supposed to test other theories?
>
> Does that make sense?
No. Yet again, if there were other "theories" they'd be producing data
and evidence to be examined.
B/
| |
| Brian Mailman 2005-08-26, 11:45 am |
| Iconoclaster wrote:
> Oh, eh... Mr. Mailman?
> Before you try to coax us into doing our homework over and over again
Nope, not my homework, Mrs. Godschalk. I'm not making claims that I
need to prove.
B/
| |
| Death 2005-08-26, 11:45 am |
|
"Brian Mailman" <bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote in message
> Iconoclaster wrote:
>
>
>
> Nope, not my homework, Mrs. Godschalk. I'm not making claims that I
> need to prove.
>
where do you see (your homework) in the sentence?
another statement you can't prove, LOL, but it is your claim.
| |
| Gary Stein 2005-08-26, 5:45 pm |
|
"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8aae89e3fb295514a648537a928f21f0@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com...
> Chris, George, Larry and Brian and Gary,
>
> How many alternative theories to HIV have ever received funding?
>
> Is there even one?
>
> You challenge the "denialists? to provide evidence of their claims, but
> the only theory being given ANY funding - since Robert Gallo introduced
> the world to it at a press conference - is HIV.
>
> Yet, there are many, many qualified scientists - which you so endearingly
> call "denialists" who question the HIV theory - who would *love* the
> opportunity to test their theories.
>
> Why aren't these individuals being given that opportunity?
>
> If HIV is NOT the first "indisputable" theory in the history of mankind,
> why have NO OTHER theories ever received funding from the Federal
> Government?
>
> Can you even site one theory that has ever been given ANY money to be
> tested?
>
> Just one will do.
>
> How about Peter Duesberg's theory? Did he ever receive any funding to
> test his drug theory?
As Larry all ready told you Duesberg has done no original research on any
aspect of HIV. However here is your "just one" do a quick PubMed search on
Poppers and HIV, or Antibiotics and HIV, or Cocaine and HIV and you will see
that indeed much research was done to see if these drugs were in any way
related to HIV and AIDS and the answer has always been that there is
absolutely no evidence that they have any relationship to AIDS or HIV.
Gary Stein
>
> I think the answer to that will be a big, fat "No."
See above................
| |
| Gary Stein 2005-08-26, 5:45 pm |
|
"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:daad4eab79a89562d7e2c3529229ce1b@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com...
> Gary,
>
> I would invite you to read Inventing the AIDS Virus by Dr. Peter Duesberg
> PhD, Professor of Molecular Biology, university of California, member,
> National Academy of Sciences and the first to map the genetic structure of
> retroviruses.
Been there done that, it is nothing but rhetoric contains no original
research or even any analysis of other peoples work. Duesburgs Drug use
induces AIDS idea has been thoroughly researched and shown to be false what
more needs to be said?
Gary Stein
| |
| wilyretrovirus 2005-08-26, 10:45 pm |
| Mr. Farrell,
umm, how did I "delete" your post? Like all of us do, we take bits and
pieces of each others' posts and respond to them quite selectively. I'm
sorry that you feel some sort of sense of victimization suddenly.
Still, it's a good ploy for avoiding what I was saying about the whole
premise of HIV causing AIDS being based on Gallo's work. Sorry bud, that
simple fact is unavoidable.
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-26, 10:45 pm |
| Larry, George, Brian, Gary and "Death,"
I am gonna have to get back to you on your very valid questions, because I
am actually going to contact the CDC by phone to confirm that they have,
in fact, never funded any alternative theories to HIV as the sole cause of
AIDS.
I will be calling them on Monday to find out if what I said is actually
true...
Please be patient, however, as it may take some time for me to get a
response from them!
I am not sure how much of a process it will take for me to get a
satisfactory answer - for all parties concerned - but I promise to get the
name of the person who provides me with an answer.
I WILL definitely let you know what I find out, as well, even if I have to
"eat crow" and admit that alternative theories have, in fact, been given
all the funding they needed and they simply fell flat!
In the meantime, please accept this link as a token of my "infection" for
all of you wonderful people, which is to "The Yin and Yang of HIV - A
Great Future Behind It" by Valendar Turner & Andrew McIntyre - Jan. 1999:
http://www.primitivism.com/yin-yang-HIV.htm
Love you! Mean it!
-Paul Whiting
Portland, Oregon
| |
| Larry Farrell 2005-08-26, 10:45 pm |
| pauleewhiting wrote:
> Larry, George, Brian, Gary and "Death,"
>
> I am gonna have to get back to you on your very valid questions, because I
> am actually going to contact the CDC by phone to confirm that they have,
> in fact, never funded any alternative theories to HIV as the sole cause of
> AIDS.
>
> I will be calling them on Monday to find out if what I said is actually
> true...
>
> Please be patient, however, as it may take some time for me to get a
> response from them!
>
> I am not sure how much of a process it will take for me to get a
> satisfactory answer - for all parties concerned - but I promise to get the
> name of the person who provides me with an answer.
>
> I WILL definitely let you know what I find out, as well, even if I have to
> "eat crow" and admit that alternative theories have, in fact, been given
> all the funding they needed and they simply fell flat!
>
It is not likely that you will find out anything useful by calling CDC,
since they do not fund research projects. You would do better to call
NIH and NSF. However, the relevant question would not be whether or not
they have ever funded research into "any alternative theories to HIV as
the sole cause of AIDS," but whether on not there have ever been any
proposal submitted for investigation of such projects. If the answer is
that such proposals have been submitted, only then does it make sense to
ask whether any have ever been funded.
By the way, just as a point of clarification, it is generally accepted
that HIV is *not* "the sole cause of AIDS." HIV simply causes the
immune suppression that allows opportunistic infections or tumors, which
actually cause the array of symptoms that comprise the clinical
definition of AIDS if they appear in conjunction with laboratory
evidence of HIV infection.
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-08-27, 8:45 am |
| "However, the relevant question would not be whether or not they have ever
funded research into "any alternative theories to HIV as the sole cause of
AIDS," but whether on not there have ever been any proposal submitted for
inves | | |